OPINION: The illusion of superiority

Published 6:30 pm Friday, May 8, 2026

The future of war has already arrived.

Ukraine has overturned long-held assumptions about warfare, revealing a battlefield where cheap systems defeat exquisite ones and rapid iteration outruns deliberate planning. Software now links satellites, drones, and sensors to find targets and coordinate strikes, performing missions once assigned to fleets.

American military dominance remains formidable, anchored in unmatched logistics, industrial depth, and alliances. Yet it is no longer self-sustaining. Where adaptation slows and adversaries accelerate, advantage erodes.

A $4 million missile should not counter a $30,000 drone. Yet that mismatch increasingly defines U.S. strategy – expensive, deliberate, and misaligned with the tempo of modern conflict, even as reform efforts gather pace.

Cheap drones, rapid iteration, and decentralized command strain even advanced defenses. Cost dictates endurance. Speed decides survival. Scale accrues to those who produce faster and cheaper. Yet drones are not omnipotent – they falter against electronic warfare, contested networks, and layered air defenses. That constraint matters. It explains why U.S. airpower, industrial capacity, and systems integration still confer a decisive edge, if properly leveraged.

Adversaries exploit the gaps regardless. China integrates AI into operational planning at scale. Russia refines drone tactics under pressure. Iran exports low-cost systems asymmetrically. Even non-state actors now assemble capabilities once reserved for major powers. The emerging logic of conflict: disrupt cheaply, adapt quickly, overwhelm systematically. The United States must match it – not by abandoning its strengths, but by enhancing them.

There are signs of progress. AI is optimizing factory output and predictive maintenance. Autonomous systems are beginning to operate alongside manned platforms. Space-based assets provide persistent surveillance and data fusion that adversaries struggle to replicate. These advantages are already embedded in operational capability – increasing speed, extending reach, amplifying force effectiveness.

But momentum remains uneven. Bureaucratic inertia lags technological possibility. Legacy contracts lock funding into platforms vulnerable to saturation attacks, while agile procurement remains marginal. Adversaries iterate in weeks. Procurement cycles stretch across years.

The symbols of American power are also emerging liabilities. Aircraft carriers project force but concentrate risk. Advanced fighters promise dominance but face diminishing returns against adaptive drone swarm attacks. The more expensive the asset, the more catastrophic its loss. And yet the United States retains advantages its rivals cannot easily replicate – logistics, supply chains, alliances. In prolonged conflict, endurance still favors the United States.

This is the paradox: strength endures, but only conditionally.

President Trump’s proposed $185 billion Golden Dome warrants intense scrutiny, not dismissal. Properly integrated with sensor fusion, AI coordination, and layered defenses, it could complement lower-cost countermeasures – provided interceptor costs remain proportional to the threats they defeat. Paired with hypersonic interceptors and directed-energy systems, it may offer a path toward balance rather than excess.

Artificial intelligence accelerates every dimension of competition. Detection-to-exploitation intervals collapse. Cyber conflict becomes pre-positioned disruption. An AI targeting the power grid could sequence substation failures faster than crews can respond.

Financial systems could be overwhelmed with synthetic transactions.

Ports, pipelines, and water systems could cascade into paralysis from a single breach. Most critical infrastructure remains insufficiently monitored, inviting exploitation. The United States recognizes these risks, but response remains fragmented.

Congress has yet to demand a full accounting of recent escalations, their assumptions, and their consequences. Clarity is not optional. It is the precondition for adaptation. Congress must act.

The Pentagon must accelerate beyond incremental reform. The administration must lead with urgency, integration, and speed.

Claims of enduring superiority in airpower, intelligence, and industrial capacity are valid – but conditional. Dominance persists only when it evolves. Because the future of war has already arrived.

It may begin with systems that fail, networks that fracture, and defenses that arrive too late – confirming what Ukraine has already revealed: superiority is conditional, and in the age of AI warfare, it can no longer be assumed.

Van Abbott is a long-time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations, and is now a full-time opinion writer. He served in the late 1960s in the Peace Corps as a teacher.